Just did a quick look at their out of conference schedule. Unfortunately, there are no match ups this year of Pac-12 vs SEC (unless we get some in some bowl games). However, we can look at how they face against the other 3 power conferences (we can argue their power order all day long in a different thread).

The SEC has 14 teams, and each has 4 non-conference games, vs the Pac-12 which has 12 teams and only 3 non-conference games. This means that the SEC has a total of 56 nonC to the Pac-12's 36 nonC. However, the Pac-12 is facing 8 teams (25%, and most are from the Big Ten) from the power conferences, 4 (12.5%) of which are in the top 25. The SEC is facing 9 teams (16.1%) and 5 in the top 25 (8.9%).

We'll keep an eye on how all these games play out for them, and with time, I may go do the conferences as well.

Let's quickly look at the ACC and what they are choosing to face off against this year.

There are 14 teams, each with 4 nonC games (for 56 total). They play 10 games from the power 5, but they also play 10 top 25 teams (this is because a number of them are playing Notre Dame, which is ranked, but not in the power 5). They are also playing against 3 top 10 schools. Of them, Clemson is taking the biggest dogs, against both Georgia (with whom they are about to lose to) and South Carolina (who is currently #9, but lost already, so they will drop from that top 10). But Florida State is also taking some solid challenges, playing OKState (a top school in the Big 12), Florida (a rival from the SEC) and Notre Dame (ranked #17).

This is compared to the top of the SEC which tends to avoid challenges, Between their big three that finished at the top last year, Auburn, Alabama, and Missouri, they are not facing a single nonC top 25 team, and only 1 nonC from a power 5 each.

I have to make a minor correction to my last post. I am, apparently unfamiliar with all the lower level Big Ten and Big 12 schools, so I said that the ACC only faced 10, when they actually face 13. Now, moving along.

After going through the 5 power conferences, the two that have the most balls for challenging the rest of the power 5 falls to the ACC and the Big 12.

The ACC is facing 13 teams from the rest of the Power 5 (23.2% of their nonC games) and 10 of those are top 25 opponents (with 3 being top 10). And this is not just their bottom feeders taking on tough opponents, both FSU and Clemson are facing 2 power 5 opponents this year (FSU is also adding Notre Dame to their opponents with a 3rd nonC game, and both of Clemson's power 5 opponents are ranked, with one being a top 10). By comparison, Georgia is the only SEC team to have 2 power 5 opponents, and teams like Auburn, Missouri, and Alabama, are not facing a single top 25 nonC opponent.

The Big 12 stands out even further as they take on 10 power 5 opponents. However, they each only have 3 nonC games so that is out of only 30 openings (33.3%, significantly higher than the next highest, the Pac-12 at 25%). While they are only face 4 teams in the top 25, all 4 are in the top 10 as well. And the teams facing against these top 10 are their bigger name schools as well. Kansas State (#20) vs Auburn (#6) in week 4. West Virginia vs Alabama (#2), losing just by 10 points this week. Texas vs UCLA (#7) in week 3. Oklahoma State vs FSU (#1), losing by only 6 this week. Of the 2 that have already played, both teams were expected to be rolled by a combined 37 points.

With the regular season done lets come back and take a look to see which (of all the power 5) is the best conference.

Thanks to a dreadful collapse of the SEC, they have just shot themselves in the foot (please note that at this time, all the "ranking" records are based on opening week rankings, I'll also do them based on end of season rankings once the title games are over).

ACC jumped over the SEC this year thanks to a crazy 4-1 record (3-0 just this last week) against the SEC.

Now all that's left is to see how the Bowl Games turn out. What I will do for those is get the Vegas numbers for them and compare the results to those. After all, if a division gets matched up so it is the underdog in all 8 games, but it pulls out a 3-5 record, that is still pretty darn good. By looking at the O/U and the Spread, I can get the estimated final scores and go from there (so we can look at both a conference's offense and defense). Though this will not say what is the "best" only what is the most overrated and underrated.

To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

At 11/30/2014 8:38:45 PM, carriead20 wrote:You called it. It was just you LOL.

An mass cannibalization by the SEC West and Pac 12 North

Well, for the SEC West, it wasn't just cannibalization. Even though the SEC east only went 4-10 vs the west, those four wins were in the second half of the season, including Georgia knocking off #9 Auburn and Missouri taking Texas AM out of the top 25.

Of course, if we split the east and west for non-conference play. The 7 teams in the SEC west (with 4 games each, for a total of 28 non-conference games) only played 4 teams from other power 5 conferences. That means that 24 of those 28 games were either from the group of five, independents (Notre Dame is considered equal to a Power 5 conference team in all my calculations), or FCS teams. In other words, auto wins.

I've been seeing a lot of people talking about SEC bias lately. I'm trying to discuss it with some folks but I'm having a hard time getting them to actually discuss anything about it though.

Here are some of their main claims.

ESPN and the CFB (and the old BCS) are rigging the games and rankings so SEC teams win. They claim the SEC network as evidence to this.

They claim all the polls unfairly rank by giving SEC more points for wins and deduct less for losing.

SEC are way over ranked in the preseason giving them a un fair advantage over other conferences.

ESPN over hypes the SEC so they get more coverage and in return my votes/better rankings.

After looking at different teams (SEC and Non) they all seem to recieve about the same points for wins and loses.

Does pre-season overrating really give an advantage? I've seen just as many non SEC teams fall from the top 25.

Any comments?

It is hard to say if the biAd is legit or not. Like it or not, the SEC has won the vast majority of recent titles. It is not like they are always put in there and keep failing. Other than the last year, they have also done very well for bowl games. I would say that a lot of the SEC was over hyped in the middle and early year (when they had 4 of the top 5), but it has pretty fairly worked its way out. I would say this shifted to a PAC 12 bias (when the south had like 4 in the top 15 or something). The bowl games will be the biggest indicator. Not just how many wins, but how well against the spread.

I've been seeing a lot of people talking about SEC bias lately. I'm trying to discuss it with some folks but I'm having a hard time getting them to actually discuss anything about it though.

Here are some of their main claims.

ESPN and the CFB (and the old BCS) are rigging the games and rankings so SEC teams win. They claim the SEC network as evidence to this.

I agree with that

They claim all the polls unfairly rank by giving SEC more points for wins and deduct less for losing.

They do, look at how far Virginia Tech moved up for beating no 8 Ohio State, while Mississippi State moved up into The top 15 for beating an LSU team that looked shaky against Wisconsin. Media influences poll voting, And with ESPN not only owning a majority of the rights to SEC games, but also the college football playoff top 25 show. It's not hard to be influenced by them.

SEC are way over ranked in the preseason giving them a un fair advantage over other conferences.

South Carolina, LSU, Texas A&M, and Auburn are all prime examples of this.

ESPN over hypes the SEC so they get more coverage and in return my votes/better rankings.

Since they own rights to almost every SEC game, this should not be a surprise.

After looking at different teams (SEC and Non) they all seem to recieve about the same points for wins and loses.

Wrong. They do it off of a conference reputation. SEC teams will move up more due to the "overall strength of The conference and the 7 championships and 8 appearances in a row.

Does pre-season overrating really give an advantage? I've seen just as many non SEC teams fall from the top 25.

Yes. If a team starts out in the top 25 that doesn't belong (such a South Carolina at no 9. They only dropped to no 23 despite getting blown out by Texas A&M at home) and loses a game, they will stay in the top 25 possibly, even if an unranked team lost to the same team by an equal amount, even though those teams when comparing common opponents early in the season are on equal footing.

I've been seeing a lot of people talking about SEC bias lately. I'm trying to discuss it with some folks but I'm having a hard time getting them to actually discuss anything about it though.

Here are some of their main claims.

ESPN and the CFB (and the old BCS) are rigging the games and rankings so SEC teams win. They claim the SEC network as evidence to this.

I agree with that

Why?

They claim all the polls unfairly rank by giving SEC more points for wins and deduct less for losing.

They do, look at how far Virginia Tech moved up for beating no 8 Ohio State, while Mississippi State moved up into The top 15 for beating an LSU team that looked shaky against Wisconsin. Media influences poll voting, And with ESPN not only owning a majority of the rights to SEC games, but also the college football playoff top 25 show. It's not hard to be influenced by them.

Virginia Tech is not a SEC team.

Yes, an unranked MSU moved up to #14 (at least 700 points in the AP poll) for beating #8 LSU.

But compare another conference

#25 TCU moved up to #9 (870 points in the AP poll) after beating #4 Oklahoma

SEC are way over ranked in the preseason giving them a un fair advantage over other conferences.

South Carolina, LSU, Texas A&M, and Auburn are all prime examples of this.

Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, USC, Nebraska

Apples for Apples other conferences have comparable teams.

ESPN over hypes the SEC so they get more coverage and in return my votes/better rankings.

Since they own rights to almost every SEC game, this should not be a surprise.

I've compared the win/loss and see no bias. The SEC network just opened shop this year but the SEC has been dominant for the better part of the last decade.

They are saying that ESPN has been rigging seasons and over hyping the SEC the whole time. So basically ESPN has been making the SEC win so many championships so they could open a new network nearly 10 years later lol.

Apparently, according to the people of the site, ESPN has MSU get so high in the rankings so Bama could beat them and get back on top. I guess this was better than just rigging the whole season so Alabama had a perfect season.

After looking at different teams (SEC and Non) they all seem to recieve about the same points for wins and loses.

Wrong. They do it off of a conference reputation. SEC teams will move up more due to the "overall strength of The conference and the 7 championships and 8 appearances in a row.

Have you actually compared wins and loses and how the points changed in the polls? Here's two games FSU and Bama played each. Every time I do a win/loss comparison it turns out the same.

#1 FSU played Citadel who is a FCS team with a 5-7 overall record. FSU beat them by 25.They recieved 8 points in the AP for that win.

#2 Bama played Western Carolina who is also a FCS team with a 7-5 record. Bama beat them by 34 points. They recieved 7 points in the AP for that win.

#1 FSU played #52 Boston College. FSU won that game by 3 points. 20-17. The AP pollsters deducted 18 points for that win.

#2 Bama played #50 West Virginia. Alabama won that by 10 points. 33-22. The AP pollsters deducted 40 points for that win.

Does pre-season overrating really give an advantage? I've seen just as many non SEC teams fall from the top 25.

Yes. If a team starts out in the top 25 that doesn't belong (such a South Carolina at no 9. They only dropped to no 23 despite getting blown out by Texas A&M at home) and loses a game, they will stay in the top 25 possibly, even if an unranked team lost to the same team by an equal amount, even though those teams when comparing common opponents early in the season are on equal footing.

As I've shown above, other conferences have just as many teams that were ranked in top 25 that have either fallen nearly off or gone all together.

It's seems like SEC haters are starting with "SEC is overrated" therefore ESPN/BCS/CFB committee/illuminati are rigging seasons and or giving the SEC unfair advantages.

Let's say whoever is getting SEC teams into the top unfairly. Won't that show when the play the top teams of other conferences? If the SEC is a weaker conference could they win championships? Theoretically speaking ESPN (whoever) could get SMU into the playoffs if they had that ability. ......but what good would that do?

It's seems like SEC haters are starting with "SEC is overrated" therefore ESPN/BCS/CFB committee/illuminati are rigging seasons and or giving the SEC unfair advantages.

Let's say whoever is getting SEC teams into the top unfairly. Won't that show when the play the top teams of other conferences? If the SEC is a weaker conference could they win championships? Theoretically speaking ESPN (whoever) could get SMU into the playoffs if they had that ability. ......but what good would that do?

They won 7 in a row, I'm saying they are favored based off of that reputation. You are saying there is no favoritism to the SEC but if there was it is justified. I disagree. It's a new year. We should not be basing the rankings of current teams, off of the strength of a conference 2-3 years ago. Tell me, do you think Auburn was really the 2nd best team last year? And in 2012, Ohio State would've made the championship game if not for being on probation. In 2010, Auburn won 7 games by a touchdown or less, in 2007, there was controversy over if Michigan or Florida should have gotten in. And in 2007, it took a slew of upsets for LSU and Ohio State to get in the championship game, when Missouri and West Virginia (that lost to Pitt was inexcusable) both lost the final week of the year. I wouldn't exactly base today's current rankings over the mess that was the BCS era and power of conferences then.

It's seems like SEC haters are starting with "SEC is overrated" therefore ESPN/BCS/CFB committee/illuminati are rigging seasons and or giving the SEC unfair advantages.

Let's say whoever is getting SEC teams into the top unfairly. Won't that show when the play the top teams of other conferences? If the SEC is a weaker conference could they win championships? Theoretically speaking ESPN (whoever) could get SMU into the playoffs if they had that ability. ......but what good would that do?

They won 7 in a row, I'm saying they are favored based off of that reputation. You are saying there is no favoritism to the SEC but if there was it is justified. I disagree. It's a new year. We should not be basing the rankings of current teams, off of the strength of a conference 2-3 years ago. Tell me, do you think Auburn was really the 2nd best team last year? And in 2012, Ohio State would've made the championship game if not for being on probation. In 2010, Auburn won 7 games by a touchdown or less, in 2007, there was controversy over if Michigan or Florida should have gotten in. And in 2007, it took a slew of upsets for LSU and Ohio State to get in the championship game, when Missouri and West Virginia (that lost to Pitt was inexcusable) both lost the final week of the year. I wouldn't exactly base today's current rankings over the mess that was the BCS era and power of conferences then.

No I never said it would be justified, in anyway. And I don't think their rank now has anything to do with any performance except this year. I'm completely satisfied with how it has all shaken out and hope Bama gets a shot at both Oregon and TCU this year.

I was just running some of the accusations by here to see what some others thought out side of the site I was visiting.

It's seems like SEC haters are starting with "SEC is overrated" therefore ESPN/BCS/CFB committee/illuminati are rigging seasons and or giving the SEC unfair advantages.

Let's say whoever is getting SEC teams into the top unfairly. Won't that show when the play the top teams of other conferences? If the SEC is a weaker conference could they win championships? Theoretically speaking ESPN (whoever) could get SMU into the playoffs if they had that ability. ......but what good would that do?

They won 7 in a row, I'm saying they are favored based off of that reputation. You are saying there is no favoritism to the SEC but if there was it is justified. I disagree. It's a new year. We should not be basing the rankings of current teams, off of the strength of a conference 2-3 years ago. Tell me, do you think Auburn was really the 2nd best team last year? And in 2012, Ohio State would've made the championship game if not for being on probation. In 2010, Auburn won 7 games by a touchdown or less, in 2007, there was controversy over if Michigan or Florida should have gotten in. And in 2007, it took a slew of upsets for LSU and Ohio State to get in the championship game, when Missouri and West Virginia (that lost to Pitt was inexcusable) both lost the final week of the year. I wouldn't exactly base today's current rankings over the mess that was the BCS era and power of conferences then.

No I never said it would be justified, in anyway. And I don't think their rank now has anything to do with any performance except this year. I'm completely satisfied with how it has all shaken out and hope Bama gets a shot at both Oregon and TCU this year.

I was just running some of the accusations by here to see what some others thought out side of the site I was visiting.

I agree. All 3 seem to be equal in many ways, and each loss by the teams is not that bad.